host computers for home lab

albin1e4

How many and what type of hosts does anyone use in their home CCNA lab?

Stacking routers and switches saves space, but a bunch of computers, monitors, and keyboards can eat up real estate very quickly. This can also get very expensive.

Brian

Drakonblayde

erm, anything that can run tcp/ip makes a good host. If you've got the boxes, just pickup a KVM switch to save space on monitors and keyboards

albin1e4

I guess I should have emphasized that I'm thinking more about cost here. Space is an issue and yes a kvm switch will help.

Is is possible to run multiple network cards from a single box? Sorry if that is a rookie question, but I don't know the answer.

Brian

viper75

If cost and space are an issue then I suggest a router sim.


http://www.routersim.com

albin1e4

Thanks for the suggestion, but I already own 2 2501 routers and a 1924 switch. I'll have to look for a few inexpensive computers to represent hosts on a couple of subnets.

Hopefully someone manufactures a $200 internet computer / appliance that occupies about a cubic foot of space. I'll start surfing the web for deals.

Brian

tunerX

Get vmware version 4.X. Install 2 more network cards in your PC and some Linux. This gives you 3 hosts. I bought a 1U rack server with a quad ethernet card. I can run 8 instances of VMWare, but have really only had to run 2. I have call manager on 2, linux on 2, windows server 2003 on 2, windows 2000 server on 2, and windows 2000 professional on 2. I can run any of them whenever I want, in whatever configuration I need. I run nantech traffic generator on the 2 windows pro boxes. I use them both to inject BGP routes and simulate all kinds of traffic to test my routes, QOS, and whatnot.

The server sits in my rack and I remote desktop into into it. I then have access to the virtual systems from anywhere.

albin1e4

tunerx,

That is a great solution. I don't understand how to implement this, but I'll do some research.

One thing I'm unclear on. From what you wrote you can simulate 8 subnets from your quad-NIC. Is this correct?

Brian

Drakonblayde

yeah it's possible to run multiple nics from a box, but mixing tcp-ip stacks on the same box usually isn't a good idea, especially if you want to define the way the traffic is going to flow... because once you start doing that with a multihomed box, you've basically just turned it into another router and defeated the purpose of having a host in the first place.

tunerx's suggestion of using vmware is a good one, though possibly a little pricey (if you're staying legal) if you don't already have all the software. It's definetly overkill for the CCNA hehe. Honestly, all you really need to adequately prepare for the CCNA is 2, maybe 3 hosts, and you can probably pickup a couple old Pentium II refurbs from a local shop for right around $100 each. Two boxes attached to a KVM switch (or however many boxes you've got if you only want to use one monitor and keyboard) really don't take up that much space. Space is an issue in my home lab as well, and I've got three boxes stacked right on top of each other in order to conserve space hehe

Jerz

tunerX wrote:

Get vmware version 4.X. Install 2 more network cards in your PC and some Linux. ...

hmmm.... I'll bet MS Virtual Server 2005 will work as well... Excellent! Oh, and you can download a trial version here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/downloads/default.mspx

tunerX

albin1e4 wrote:

tunerx,

That is a great solution. I don't understand how to implement this, but I'll do some research.

One thing I'm unclear on. From what you wrote you can simulate 8 subnets from your quad-NIC. Is this correct?

Brian

Each Instance of VMWare is its own system. They have a networking option called "bridging" where a VM uses a physical NIC on your system. The system will not turn into a router because you actually have to install a routing daemon or use static routing of some kind for that functionality. Each VM can use DHCP or a static address. For each instance on VMware and each NIC you have, you can create one single subnet.

Drakonblayde

tunerX wrote:

albin1e4 wrote:

tunerx,

That is a great solution. I don't understand how to implement this, but I'll do some research.

One thing I'm unclear on. From what you wrote you can simulate 8 subnets from your quad-NIC. Is this correct?

Brian

Each Instance of VMWare is its own system. They have a networking option called "bridging" where a VM uses a physical NIC on your system. The system will not turn into a router because you actually have to install a routing daemon or use static routing of some kind for that functionality. Each VM can use DHCP or a static address. For each instance on VMware and each NIC you have, you can create one single subnet.

*nods* VMWare is a great toy. I've been using it for awhile now, though more for my support of Microsoft studies than for Cisco. It's nice to be able to simulate multiple exchange servers, multiple domain controllers, and mess with things like replication and domain trusts without actually having all the hardware for it. I actually never thought about running call manager on it, but that's an idea I'll definetly borrow when I get into my voice and QoS studies.

However, for what he'd spend on VMWare itself (last I checked, Workstation 4.5 was sitting right around 200 bucks) and for licenses for whatever operating systems he wants to install, he can probably get off cheaper by picking up a couple of refurbs.

I dunno, I've personally gone both ways. I've got 5 boxes in the house, and parts for at least 2 more, just need cases for 'em, though all but two are extremely low end (Pentium 200ish, AMD K6ish). Been messing with computers since I was a teen, so I've had a collection amass itself over the years hehe

Ultimately, it's going to be whatever solution works best for him. VMWare is great and can help you with much more than just Cisco studies. I just think it's extreme overkill for a CCNA prep

viper75

vmware is a good program. I also use Microsoft Virtual PC which I think is also a good one too.

I have Win2003 Server running in one of the virtual pc's.

Drakonblayde

I'm probably just biased, but I run as little microsoft as I possibly can. Usually just enough for learning. My home 'production' (for lack of a better term) network came off it's domain controller the second I passed my MCSA hehe.

Webmaster

I'm not sure if it is still available, but they used to offer a free beta of Virtual Server 2005. I downloaded it but never got the time to install it and try it out, but from what I've read it seems a lot more complicated to use than Virtual PC or VMware. Regardless, the beta is (/was) free.

Drakonblayde

You used the word 'beta' and 'Microsoft' in the same post. I'm running for the hills

viper75

Drakonblayde wrote:

You used the word 'beta' and 'Microsoft' in the same post. I'm running for the hills

lol...

Webmaster

Anymore anti-MS sentiments and I'm running too.

Surely the beta products have bugs and aren't always stable, that's why it's beta and supposed to be installed in non-production environments. Regardless, it is free. And the free beta of Virtual PC 2004 worked fine for me, so I expect the Virtual Server 2005 to be at least a useful download for those who cannot afford virtual PC or VMware or don't want to run an illegal version.

Drakonblayde

Webmaster wrote:

Anymore anti-MS sentiments and I'm running too.

Surely the beta products have bugs and aren't always stable, that's why it's beta and supposed to be installed in non-production environments. Regardless, it is free. And the free beta of Virtual PC 2004 worked fine for me, so I expect the Virtual Server 2005 to be at least a useful download for those who cannot afford virtual PC or VMware or don't want to run an illegal version.

I don't really hate Microsoft, but they've pulled some stuff over the years that just get the venom flowing within me.

So I'll make a positive comment on Microsoft! Any user that installs one of their beta products is likely to gain valuable troubleshooting experience.

(Ok, I'm done now)